IF YOU WANT TO KNOW GO AND RENT THE DVD ON WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR THE BIG THREE COULD HAVE BEEN THE LEADERS THERE BUT INSTEAD THEY DECIDED TO KEEP ON MAKING THE SAME OLD GAS SUCKING CARS
My main reason for being against these loans is that the Big 3 "gambled" that fuel efficiency would not be important - either becoming important thru global demand, or slight increase in government standards. The Big 3 basically designed their vehicles and engines to meet the minimum specified CAFE mpg standards.
The Big 3 also gambled that the fuel crises of the past would not rear their heads again.
And even if the fuel crisis didn't rear its head the last 1-2 years, they mismanaged their business for the last 30 - 40 years such that the money they should have for these changes, has been used.
Now the world's other auto manufacturers have also been guilty to so extent of doing these same things - chasing the high performance, SUV, PU, and larger sedan desires of the U.S. market. The thing is though they have run their businesses better and can make an orderly transition as the market shifts.
I suggest if the Big 3 want high mpg vehicles they dust-off the basic designs of the Ford Escort, Geo Metro, and Dodge Omni's and update them with the more efficient engine technology we now have. It is not rocket science to get 35-40 mpg just using a gasoline ICE. And if they're really stuck they can license VW diesel technology.
Welcome to the Forum. I am more leaning toward California killed the EVs. The legislators realized after the money was spent that EVs were still a ways from practicality. So they pulled their ignorant mandate and left most of the automakers with cars that were not practical. Many people liked them. It was just not feasible to be on the hook for the cost of replacing a $20k battery if it were to fail. I think Ford and Toyota are the only ones that sold any of their EVs.
Remember the movie was made by the same Wonks that control the CA legislature. So they are always trying to undermine the automakers. They have latched onto hybrids and EVs are so yesterday for that bunch of yahoos. The Hollywood crowd could care less about American jobs. They are in their little sheltered world in Hollywood.
So all the problems at the Big 3 are not self inflicted.
"My main reason for being against these loans is that the Big 3 "gambled" that fuel efficiency would not be important - either becoming important thru global demand, or slight increase in government standards. The Big 3 basically designed their vehicles and engines to meet the minimum specified CAFE mpg standards..."
I agree with this and the rest of your message, kernick. It's well articulated. However, the question, as I see it, is should the loan be based on, (a) punishment for past actions, or (b) what the best course of action is at this juncture, since past actions are water over the dam? I would select (b). I'll acknowledge, though, that while I favor extending the loans, I'm concerned about the negatives associated with this course of action.
one positive thing about these loans, which were funded the other day by the way, is that they should contribute to the domestics keeping automotive jobs in the U.S., as they are only for revamping plants here, NOT in Mexico or Canada.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
To answer you and nippononly, I don't see where the collapse of the Big 3 corporate structure necessarily means a NET change.
Sure some investors will lose, and surely the workers will lose their jobs initially, but the demand for cars here in the U.S. would be little changed (a fairly fixed quantity based on the whole economy), and these same factories and workers would still be needed to produce cars under some brand (new owners). And I doubt they would all collapse with in a month or 2 of each other, so the effect on the economy would not be severe as if all 3 collapsed on the same day.
I don't see it much different then letting Sears and KMart fail, as some other store will buy the facitlity and hire workers. No net loss really. Or if Microsoft and Oracle failed, if the demand is still there then some other corporate entity will step in to provide the goods and services.
So I really don't fall for these executives' stories that the fall of the Big 3 has all these dire consequences, when it is the foremost thought of these guys, to do what is best for their corporation (and themselves!). And I would guess the UAW also is a messenger with a strong bias, of the doom that would follow if the Big 3 disappeared.
I think that if what you describe were to happen, it is the UAW that would be the big loser, as most incoming companies would not want union labor. But then I don't see the semi-skilled work that many of these laborers perform as worth the high rate of pay the union seems to think it is. That would just be a necessary market correction. But the jobs would remain.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
That is the real truth of the matter. There are plenty of people willing to do the same job as the UAW workers for less money. That is a factor that the Big 3 cannot escape if given a $trillion dollars to spend. Foreign automakers will build new modern factories where the labor is plentiful and the Big 3 will continue to lose market share.
Yes, I think you guys are in agreement that this $25B is mainly going to go to prop-up the inefficient business models - including their unions, of the Big 3. I'm sure there's some nationalistic pride being brought into the discussion.
I think this loan is a reflection on how entrenched and efficient lobbyists have become in D.C. They spin a good tale of pending economic disaster if any of the Big 3 fail; and end-up getting a huge loan - that I estimate will have about a 10% chance of ever being repaid. So the taxpayer will pickup the bill for the corporate welfare of supplementing the good wages at the Big 3.
The average-Joe taxpayer will be asked to pay to help keep UAW jobs, pensions and health-care that they could only dream about getting in their job.
I still don't understand how anyone can support government loans, when a decently run business should be able to get loans from banks or issue stock? If they can't get a loan and no one is willing to invest in the stock - what does that tell you?
They spin a good tale of pending economic disaster if any of the Big 3 fail
Just look over the last few weeks how the media moaned about WaMu the largest banking failure in history. When they hit bottom from poor lending practices a real bank bought the pieces and will carry on banking like nothing ever happened.
Proof, I went into my WaMu this morning and it was very light traffic for a Friday. I talked to several of the ladies. They knew it would happen sooner or later. They are happy that Chase bought them and not B of A or Wells Fargo. One of the ladies has worked that branch long enough to remember 3 prior names on the building. She says the 4th will go up in a few weeks. No big deal except for the stockholders that let the bank run amok.
a decently run business should be able to get loans from banks or issue stock? If they can't get a loan and no one is willing to invest in the stock - what does that tell you?
It is time to shut the doors and let someone sell the product that knows what they are doing. I am not sure if anyone wants any of the Big 3 brands except maybe Jeep. The rest all have competitors that are as good or better. The Truck brands will probably survive. One of the largest Chevy Dealers went bust. So they don't have to pay him. I think I miss Studebaker & Packard more than I will miss any GM or Ford product.
You mean the funny little man from Ditech went broke? I don't think there is much chance of too few banks. Our little town has 4 and no B of A or Union Bank. If you have a couple they will be after your business.
Did they actually get the money or is it a prayer and a promise?
positive things from working for The Boeing Company is the membership in the Boeing Employees Credit Union. They are solid and steady and are actually growing through all of this banking business trouble. Approximately 460,000 members in BECU and growing. Strong, conservative banking growth from them. Even if you leave the Company you can continue being a BECU member and it is well worth being a member of that credit union.
I know the Alaska Credit Union I have been with since 1970 does not go in for shaky mortgages. The more I think about it the more I think we should let these outfits go under and the economy will right itself. Bailing out a bank or an automaker is not a good solution. Same with bailing out someone that bought a house they could not afford. Why should I pay my tax dollars to someone that lied on a financial statement. Most of the mortgages we are seeing go under are people that claimed they could make the payment without being verified. I don't care who in government caused it. That is bad economics and bailing people out that make bad decisions does not teach them anything. That goes for GM & Ford.
I agree completely with you on your post above, man. If they're so dumb to loan people this money when not even checking their financial "vitals" then let them fall over and die. Same with the people that lied to get the false "financing."
Nope, Boeing Employees Credit Union does not and will not lean that way, either, and loan where loans ought not to be loaned out. They are too conservative, but, it's getting them places. Good old-fashioned intelligence in play. Greedy borrowers and greedier lending practices ought not to be rewarded with a "bailout." No such way, man.
You mean the funny little man from Ditech went broke
You know who that funny little man works for, right? GMAC, the parent of the parent of DiTech. If they go bankrupt that will probably mean the end of GM with or without the loans.
And all the folks pointing out that the taxpayers shouldn't be loaning money to a company to whom no BANK OR OTHER LENDING PARTY will loan money are absolutely right on, IMO. But then, that's why they are supposed to be certified as solvent without the loans FIRST, before disbursing the money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Here's yet another way you can tell that this bailout proposal is a scam:
These investment banks are "warning" us that if we don't give them a trillion dollars, they'll go out of business, lose all their assets, and somehow WE will suffer as a result.
Why don't WE try that one at our local bank? Walk in to the loan dept. and demand a "bailout," or a "loan" or whatever you want to call it. Tell the loan officer that if he doesn't approve of our "rescue package," we'll lose our assets, and the BANK will suffer, because WE won't have any money to deposit.
See how long you can rant before they call the police.
these banks, carmakers, stock brokerage firms, etc., have lobbyists working hard for them in Washington, D.C. Where the fluff of BS and hot air actually can pull some weight!
I guess the lawmakers are believing these lobbyists and banking and brokerage institutions, and economic pundits when they cry for a bailout, enough to even entertain a 750B bailout. :sick:
Now, to me, the Big 2 1/2 25B bailout has more of a semblance of legitimacy, when one can let their mind wander back to 1980 and Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's Fed.loan "bailout." And the fact that it did help Chrysler recover and Lee and Co.did pay the Fed.Guv-Mint back by 1985, in full. And re-tooling their factories for a new world order of vehicles set more for the new "scene" of all-electrics and hybrids and tinkering fascination galore. I can begin to see some order to that. But they should show a good, solid recovery plan with numbers drawn out to the next few years and how they believe their balance sheets will look in that timeframe. Otherwise, it's just a game of "give me now and then give me more later."
Which points my brain squarely to the UAW and coughs up thoughts of "Gimme-gimmee-two for me and 1/2 for you...gimee-gimee-gimeee-gimmeeeeee," ad naseum.
And I'm back to thinking it's not a very good $25B bailout idea. At tall. All it took was thinking of the job banks and entitlement mentality and that blew it to smithereens for me.
Congress is in a tight spot right now. They are receiving 1000s of calls at the rate of 100 to 1 against the bailout. So they got people stuffing money in their pockets saying bail us out, and voters calling and saying better not or we vote you out. I love it. Vote all incumbents out and get a start on cleaning up Washington DC.
I really wonder if GM or Ford will meet the requirements to get any of the money Congress is offering.
If the object receiving the taxpayer's funded bailout is worth a damn, another like kind corporation would be competing for the opportunity to buy it. If it is not worth the risk to another like kind corporation, why should the Federals take it over with our money?
Does Paulson really own 680 million worth of stock in Goldman Sachs? If so, he should be disqualified for being in involved in the first place.
At one time WaMu mortage brokers, working on commission only, were greed motivated to grant a loan to the worst of applicants. As those brokers were a major player in the failure of the bank, their commissions should be returned as verified by each of their IRS returns for previous years. However, the customers desire to live in a dwelling he didn't earn or deserve is greed and that should not be rewarded either.
Paulson and his peons stand in front of the media and declare "catastrophic results to our economy if we don't proceed with the bail out."
Tell us: What specifically would the alleged catastrophic results be. Describe them in detail. (You can use a Blue book, if that is what you're used to in college)
Because Bailout rewards Greed and Mismanagement - I'm against it. :mad: :mad:
Because Bailout rewards Greed and Mismanagement - I'm against it.
I think we are in the majority of tax payers that feel the same way. Let the chips fall. The stocks that are stable and the companies making money will survive. The ones that are poorly managed will die and hopefully their greedy executives with them.
If one really believes in the benevolence of a "free market" and the government not controlling the economy, they should have no problem opposing the bailout. I say let the greedy bastards reap what they have sown. Few dare to claim these people make too much when times appear good, so when the tables turn, nobody should step in either.
Those who support the GOP should be happy some of their politicos raise a voice against this looting of the treasury...and should also be displeased some of their politicos (esp at the top) support it.
Music Man. Yours are amongst the most sensible comments I have seen anywhere re this whole credit fiasco, (and it's refreshing to see the level of concensus here).
A private business fails ? Tough. Try again - but not with public money. If they're such great businessmen they'll easily convince someone to bankroll them. If not, then they need to go and find a proper job like us ordinary folk. Neither the World, nor we, owe these folk a living. What happened to all the billions of $'s, £'s, €'s etc that these outfits made in profits through all the good years ? Did they give it all to charity and we missed it ? Don't think so.
Never mind, our glorious leader - Gordon Brown - is in Washington to help you guys sort it out. Heaven help you. This is the guy who, for 10 years as UK Chancellor of The Exchequer, constantly said he was happy that "The City" did a good job of self-regulation. Now, as Prime Minister and faced with financial catastrophe, he wants firm and "proper" controls placed on "The City". er.......Horse, Door, The, Bolted, Closing, Has, Stable, After, The : re-arrange to form a well known phrase or saying, dumbo. :sick:
More power to BECU and the other Credit Unions but please don't ever let the fat cats from Lehman, Goldman Sachs or the other robber barons get anywhere near them. Failure on this scale should carry a lifetime ban from holding an Executive position in any financial institution.................but it won't. :mad: Maybe there's a clue as to why in the fact that our previous Prime Minister - Tony Blair - resigned and then took up a, doubtless well paid, part-time post with J P Morgan, who are a................oh yeah, some sort of bank. Well, well, well. Still, I'm sure they hired him for his management brilliance. Thinking about it; he was actually pretty clever. He managed to leave office before the excrement hit the rotating air-moving machinery and left Gordon Brown facing said macinery.
Sorry, have to stop now; getting perilously close to a rant. Time for a nice cup of tea I think, Jeeves, aka Mrs Alltorque. Ah, my beloved Mrs Alltorque has just suggested I do something with the teapot that would certainly bring tears to my eyes, at the very least. Hey ho, toodle pip.
Vote all incumbents out and get a start on cleaning up Washington DC.
I have a problem, then.
The congressman for my district is Tom Tancredo; he is not running for re-election in November. Running instead is a former State Treasurer (R) and a no-name (D) - the district is highly R-leaning.
My senator is Wayne Allard. Also not running for re-election. Instead, we have two former congressmen - Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaeffer (R).
And, of course, the big kahuna is ineligible for a 3rd term, so we have two senators vying for the top spot.
Exactly which incumbents should I not be voting for?
I put Tancredo in the same category as my Congressman Hunter. They got out while they still had some integrity. I understand the reason people keep voting the same name in. Seniority rules in Congress. I think of incumbents as in the same job. When they move around it does not seem they are quite as entrenched in the muck.
It will require an amendment to the Constitution to limit the terms. Until it is hard for someone to stay clean and above the corruption.
Congress approves $25 Billion for automakers Again:
Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.
Martin said automakers could use the money for projects such as a new engine plant GM has announced it intends to build in Flint, Michigan.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner spoke of plans to invest 370 million dollars in a new plant, which will be the exclusive site for production of the gasoline engine or "range extender" for the electric Chevrolet Volt, due out in November 2010.
What a horrible quote. Still pushes the impression that a requirement for eligibility is that a plant must be at least 20 years old, which is not true. Born out by the following quote from a GM spokesman that the money could be used to build a new plant. [/end rant]
The funding of the loan program has now passed both houses of congress. It is just pending the president's signature.
Also included in the bill is the expiration of most bans on offshore drilling. And a whole bunch of pork.
I kind of wish we would stop calling this a bailout. This is not intended to help the automakers get out of trouble they got themselves into. The automakers are prohibited from using this money to simply shore up their books. (I know it has that net effect, since it frees up budgetary constraints) They still have to show they have a survival plan without the assistance from the government in order to be approved for the loans. These loans are to help offset the costs of meeting new federal mandates. Not unusual at all. Our government, at all levels, has been giving grants and loans for similar purposes to businesses for a long time. Not that I like that, but since the loan program was already in place, and it is a rather common practice, I just figured the funding was a foregone conclusion.
Now, to me, the Big 2 1/2 25B bailout has more of a semblance of legitimacy, when one can let their mind wander back to 1980 and Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's Fed.loan "bailout." And the fact that it did help Chrysler recover and Lee and Co.did pay the Fed.Guv-Mint back by 1985, in full. And re-tooling their factories for a new world order of vehicles set more for the new "scene"
Yes, but now 20 years later, here they are, right back in the same position (in the red for years on end), with their hands out. "Please, Mr. Congress, help us do the things we knew we should have done a decade ago but ignored as we chased short-term profits."
That's the real problem with the automaker bailout, we know we will be right back in the same spot a decade or two from now. The domestics have no long-term planning worth a darn.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
the key word is "could". It could also be use to shore up the losses they've accumulated so far. "intends to build", "spoke of plans" . Come on, if you've been around long enough, you know it's corporate vocabulary equivalent to the term "b.s."
I agree, it is probably money down the drain. I think that the automakers need to make it on their own or die. If we have a sizable unemployed workforce some enterprise will open up to use that labor force. At least the ones willing to work. Those that want a free ride let them starve. The executives can jump off their mortgaged to the max penthouse balcony.
Well whatever business plans the Big 3 (or any other auto manufacturer) have had are probably obsolete today. With the consumer confidence numbers falling and the world economy entering a recession - of debateable severity, those plans on how many autos and at what profit margin they can sell at - is obsolete.
There is no way I can see any auto manufacturer planning on doing much better then breaking-even with the economies going the way they are.
To Vegas or atlantic city and made a bad bet not many of us would turn to the government and ask for a bail out. All this bail out talk is pretty much the same. But even if the Government was forced to take over Detroit could they do worse than what the leaders of the domestic market has?
My first inclination is to say no bail out and no loans. But I believe what I think or want doesn't matter and if congress decides to risk the taxpayers money they night as well nationalize. Not that I like the idea but at least you could control the compitition.
You have hit on the real rub for me regarding all this. I will admit that I don't really have too much of a problem with the availability of these loans or the funding of the loans. The government handed down new mandates to an industry and offered some financial assistance to that industry to help offset the financial challenge of meeting those new mandates. It is common practice for our government to make this kind of assistance available. Frankly, the debate over whether or not the government should be handing down the mandates is a much more interesting issue to me.
Market conditions will always be a greater incentive to any business than any government mandate. Serendipitously. the auto market has changed and now these loans effectively have become a means to help auto makers meet the new market conditions. We can discuss previous business decisions, but it remains that the auto makers produced the cars that the market determined, the cars that people wanted to buy and that they could make the most money from. Now the whole landscape has changed.
If the current financial crisis is really as deep, widespread, and threatening as it has been portrayed, then it will surely affect the auto market, and that was already a market that was in flux. Funding for auto development as well as auto buying will get tighter. The auto makers are bleeding cash. They keep pushing back projections as to when they might be able to stop the bleeding. There seems to be no understanding of whether or not additional infusions of cash will make any difference. We keep hearing about new cars and technology that is 1, 2, 5 years and more down the road complete with some steep price tags. Will the patient even still be breathing by that time? I hope they will, but that is a real big unknown. This seems especially the case with Chrysler. They're private, so we don't know much about inner working. Don't know how deep Cerberus is willing to dig into their pockets to keep Chrysler viable, or if they will just harvest parts and sell them off.
The auto makers, especially the big 2.5, are going to have a difficult time showing they can survive without these loans. They might be able to do it, but I am skeptical at this point. I just have not seen or heard enough that bolsters my confidence yet. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagine that sheer survival becomes their primary justification for needing more government funding. At that point, though it will cause pain, I say let them die.
You should visit Mexico during the Day of the Dead festivities. Seeing all that food, booze and cigs on loved ones graves does have a catharsis effect.
Maybe the $25 billion will reduce anxiety enough to let the automakers get back to focusing on building cars for the new model year.
But even if the Government was forced to take over Detroit could they do worse than what the leaders of the domestic market has?
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face after a year and a half of this Congress. That bunch would be lucky to come up with a car as useless as a Yugo. Not sure how they would control the competition. That is the problem now. The competition is beating the socks off the Big 3. Let em die and a better mouse trap will replace them.
Yes congress sucks. But let me put this in perspective. If you or I invested poorly and could no longer make ends meet it is highly unlikely we would get a 20 million dollar bonus for our failure. I am not promoting the Government taking over the auto industry any more than I am of them bailing out wall street. If we are a capitalist country, and as long as we were making money we seemed to think we were, then we are capitalists going up and not socialists going down.
However that being said if they bail out wall street why not bail out GM? Part of GMs debt is tied up in long term retirement funds, something not faced by Honda and Toyota. Pay off the retirement fund for GM and you free more than enough to make them profitable again. That still seems like nationalizing to me.
I am still leaning on no bail out and let all of the investors gain or lose based on their own particular risks. If that hurts the world economy so be it. It might be time to start all over again.
I am still leaning on no bail out and let all of the investors gain or lose based on their own particular risks. If that hurts the world economy so be it. It might be time to start all over again.
That is where I am at also. On GM retirements. If they go belly up with no money in the retirement fund we will be stuck paying part of the bill anyway. We could loan them the money and they piss it away and we are still stuck with guaranteeing the retirements. I think most of the money shuffle is caused by fear. My bank manager told me that WaMu would have weathered the storm except the media put them up as being on the brink of disaster. People got scared and pulled out so much money they became what the media predicted. Same happened with IndyMac bank when goofy Chuck Schumer made a statement about their solvency. These people that cause a run on a bank should be prosecuted same as yelling fire in a theater.
There is a quote that is getting a bit of play around the blogosphere these days.
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin - it just doesn't work" Attributed to Allan Meltzer, economist Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business, I think this is my current favorite quote. I would go further and say that it is like life without pain -it just doesn't make sense.
Pain is unpleasant, and we are naturally averse to it. The unpleasantness of pain is the very essence of its value. Pain is valuable. It gets our attention. It motivates. Pain teaches, and it possibly gets the point across better than any other means. Without it, while we may be fat and happy and blissfully drunk, the dynamism of life simply rots away.
We have become a culture so averse to negative consequences that we seem to have decided that they must be avoided at any cost. We have mitigated, accommodated, enabled, and made super attempts at removing even the possibility of being hurt. That is a dangerous evolution.
If we have even an ounce of human compassion left, it is only natural that we do not want anyone to hurt. We don't want failure. We don't want organizations, systems, businesses, or people to fail. We naturally want to choose a less distasteful option, the path of least pain. But failure must remain an option, and frankly, no matter what we do, it always will be an option.
Sometimes we want to share the pain, share the burden. This is appealing, and does make some sense, but we forget that that does not really lessen the pain, it just makes it easier to get through. Worse, we sometimes want to shift the pain to an unwitting accomplice. Pain works best when it is sharp, focused, and intense. It pinpoints the source of the problem. Amorphous and misplaced pain is harder to diagnose.
So, it from this perspective that I look at the current economic turmoil, including financials, housing, and the auto industry. We keep hearing that we must do this because the other alternative simply must not be an option. We don't want to go there because that would be too painful. We simply can't let our financial sector fail, or housing values drop further, foreclosures continue to rise, or auto makers go under. Too many people will lose their jobs, too much wealth will be lost.
To which I respond, no. I understand that we might not want to go there, but failure is a perfectly viable option albeit an undesirable one. I also do not want anyone to hurt, but accepting that pain, even great pain, will be necessary is not an absence of compassion. Compassion guides us through the wake of pain, to relieve pain, and to move forward. Compassionate consideration should move us to have no desire to cause pain, but I think it is misappropriated when it is used as reason to avoid pain.
For what it is worth, I still don't think of the loan program now available to the auto makers as a bailout. The debate over that issue began nearly two years ago now. It is just unfortunate that the funding of that program has gotten caught up in the current economic environment. It looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it just doesn't talk like a duck. At least not yet.
Failure for the automakers, in the form of bankruptcy, may yet be the option that accomplishes the most. I tend to think the same way about other issues. No matter what happens, I have not gotten to the point that I believe that GM, Ford, and even Chrysler will simply cease to exist. Coming out the other side of failure smaller, leaner, meaner, more agile and able to compete, may just be the most desirable outcome. Someone just has to decide that it is worth the pain.
Seems that along the way we forgot a few other timely quotes.
Damn the torpedoes . . . I will fear no evil . . . That which doesn't kill me . . . This too shall pass.
Sorry for the long post, but thanks for indulging my thoughts.
with these sorts of sales numbers. The Big 2.5 can't cut their expenses fast enough. I'm afraid if you give them $25B right now, it'll be gone within a year. 2 years at most. And then you'll still have the bankrupty and the government picking up the pensions and unemployment insurances.
You and others have made some very persuasive points regarding why we should deny our domestic automakers bailout money, risking that one, two or even three of them may fail. As I've expressed in earlier messages, I'm conflicted on this issue.
One of the differences between allowing most companies to fail compared with the Detroit 3 is that there most likely wouldn't be a domestic replacement for a failed auto company. This is a difficult to enter business, unlike, say, a restaurant chain, where if one fails there's one or more that will replace it. Any volume lost would be quickly made up by foreign auto makers, thereby strengthening their position in the North American market even more. My question, then, is are you ready to lose these companies for good?
We are part of the global economy & vehicles from other countries have been sold over here for over 50 years.
I'm not willing or ready to subsidize any company, anywhere that can not make a profit on it's own. My investment portfolio includes overseas opportunities and what is my reward for bailing out domestics?
I would miss the Big 3 just as much as I miss Kaiser, Frazier, Studebaker, & Packard.
I remember when the French automakers were driven from these shores like running Lemmings into the sea. I lost no sleep over it. I didn't care if they survived or not. The Brits have lost their auto industry and they have survived. It didn't bother me when Nissan was about to go belly up. The Koreans are down to one company because Hyundai owns Kia and they are surviving. The domestics should be the same. Live or die as a capitalist.
However if we take the socialist view then don't mess around, nationalize. If you nationalize you can always undercut the foreign compitition because you are investing tax money and you can make rules and regulations that favor your nationalized company. It would put us in the same long term problem we had with Freddy and Fannie but so what? You just go back and ask for another bail out. (Hyperbole offered for free)
My question, then, is are you ready to lose these companies for good?
That is an interesting question, and a perfectly valid one. Bear in mind my position that I have not gotten to the point where I believe that any of the Big 2.5 will just cease to exist no matter what happens. It is entirely possible that any or all of them could survie the pain of failure and come out stronger than before and still be what we would call a US company. It is also quite possible that any or all of them may be gobbled up in while or in part by some other company, either domestic or not, and still have a presence in the US. Gone for good just doesn't strike me as a strong possibility, yet.
I have been known to say that we used to be a nation that made things, and we are becoming a nation that talks about making things, and we are increasingly content to let other nations make things for us to buy. I make no judgment as to whether this is a good thing or not, but I admit to not being entirely comfortable with the trend. The stakes are pretty high when we're talking about multi-billion dollar industries. You're right, those are not easily replaced, but their sheer size almost assures their continued existence though that future existence may be very different from their current existence.
Unfettered capitalism can be brutal. There is no denying a certain Darwinian element. If we truly value the premises and concepts of capitalism, however, and we want to play the game of business on a global scale, then we should be ready to play that game on that scale while adhering to the premises and concepts that we hold so valuable. The only other option is to abandon those values and adopt something else. I'm not sure I want to go there.
Certainly there is no small element of national pride at play. There is also legitimate concern over our national vitality. My concern is whether that pride is confidence or arrogance, and I wonder how much fortitude we really have left to face issues of vitality. There is a real sense of dread around Detroit these days. It is hard to keep your head up when you are repeatedly getting your butt kicked. I am convinced that the biggest reason the Big 2.5 are struggling is that they are simply getting beat at the game. I think that is primarily due to that fat, happy and blissfully drunk deal I mentioned in my earlier post. Fat, happy, and blissfully drunk can be a lot of fun until you wake up with a headache to the realization that you girlfriend went home with some other guy at the party and your the captain of the football team. (I'm trying to set a record for extended metaphors. How am I doing? )
I really do want to see the domestics survive as domestic companies. It is just time for a new game plan. Regrouping and rethinking after defeat is the way to move forward, not simply begging fans to buy more tickets at even higher prices and asking for a new stadium simply because they are the home team under threat of moving away. I am more inclined to throw my support behind a lean, mean, sober team.
Comments
The Big 3 also gambled that the fuel crises of the past would not rear their heads again.
And even if the fuel crisis didn't rear its head the last 1-2 years, they mismanaged their business for the last 30 - 40 years such that the money they should have for these changes, has been used.
Now the world's other auto manufacturers have also been guilty to so extent of doing these same things - chasing the high performance, SUV, PU, and larger sedan desires of the U.S. market. The thing is though they have run their businesses better and can make an orderly transition as the market shifts.
I suggest if the Big 3 want high mpg vehicles they dust-off the basic designs of the Ford Escort, Geo Metro, and Dodge Omni's and update them with the more efficient engine technology we now have. It is not rocket science to get 35-40 mpg just using a gasoline ICE. And if they're really stuck they can license VW diesel technology.
I am more leaning toward California killed the EVs. The legislators realized after the money was spent that EVs were still a ways from practicality. So they pulled their ignorant mandate and left most of the automakers with cars that were not practical. Many people liked them. It was just not feasible to be on the hook for the cost of replacing a $20k battery if it were to fail. I think Ford and Toyota are the only ones that sold any of their EVs.
Remember the movie was made by the same Wonks that control the CA legislature. So they are always trying to undermine the automakers. They have latched onto hybrids and EVs are so yesterday for that bunch of yahoos. The Hollywood crowd could care less about American jobs. They are in their little sheltered world in Hollywood.
So all the problems at the Big 3 are not self inflicted.
I agree with this and the rest of your message, kernick. It's well articulated. However, the question, as I see it, is should the loan be based on, (a) punishment for past actions, or (b) what the best course of action is at this juncture, since past actions are water over the dam? I would select (b). I'll acknowledge, though, that while I favor extending the loans, I'm concerned about the negatives associated with this course of action.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Sure some investors will lose, and surely the workers will lose their jobs initially, but the demand for cars here in the U.S. would be little changed (a fairly fixed quantity based on the whole economy), and these same factories and workers would still be needed to produce cars under some brand (new owners). And I doubt they would all collapse with in a month or 2 of each other, so the effect on the economy would not be severe as if all 3 collapsed on the same day.
I don't see it much different then letting Sears and KMart fail, as some other store will buy the facitlity and hire workers. No net loss really. Or if Microsoft and Oracle failed, if the demand is still there then some other corporate entity will step in to provide the goods and services.
So I really don't fall for these executives' stories that the fall of the Big 3 has all these dire consequences, when it is the foremost thought of these guys, to do what is best for their corporation (and themselves!). And I would guess the UAW also is a messenger with a strong bias, of the doom that would follow if the Big 3 disappeared.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think this loan is a reflection on how entrenched and efficient lobbyists have become in D.C. They spin a good tale of pending economic disaster if any of the Big 3 fail; and end-up getting a huge loan - that I estimate will have about a 10% chance of ever being repaid. So the taxpayer will pickup the bill for the corporate welfare of supplementing the good wages at the Big 3.
The average-Joe taxpayer will be asked to pay to help keep UAW jobs, pensions and health-care that they could only dream about getting in their job.
I still don't understand how anyone can support government loans, when a decently run business should be able to get loans from banks or issue stock? If they can't get a loan and no one is willing to invest in the stock - what does that tell you?
Just look over the last few weeks how the media moaned about WaMu the largest banking failure in history. When they hit bottom from poor lending practices a real bank bought the pieces and will carry on banking like nothing ever happened.
Proof, I went into my WaMu this morning and it was very light traffic for a Friday. I talked to several of the ladies. They knew it would happen sooner or later. They are happy that Chase bought them and not B of A or Wells Fargo. One of the ladies has worked that branch long enough to remember 3 prior names on the building. She says the 4th will go up in a few weeks. No big deal except for the stockholders that let the bank run amok.
a decently run business should be able to get loans from banks or issue stock? If they can't get a loan and no one is willing to invest in the stock - what does that tell you?
It is time to shut the doors and let someone sell the product that knows what they are doing. I am not sure if anyone wants any of the Big 3 brands except maybe Jeep. The rest all have competitors that are as good or better. The Truck brands will probably survive. One of the largest Chevy Dealers went bust. So they don't have to pay him. I think I miss Studebaker & Packard more than I will miss any GM or Ford product.
The big 2.5 US automakers may already be there.
Did they actually get the money or is it a prayer and a promise?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Nope, Boeing Employees Credit Union does not and will not lean that way, either, and loan where loans ought not to be loaned out. They are too conservative, but, it's getting them places. Good old-fashioned intelligence in play. Greedy borrowers and greedier lending practices ought not to be rewarded with a "bailout." No such way, man.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
You know who that funny little man works for, right? GMAC, the parent of the parent of DiTech. If they go bankrupt that will probably mean the end of GM with or without the loans.
And all the folks pointing out that the taxpayers shouldn't be loaning money to a company to whom no BANK OR OTHER LENDING PARTY will loan money are absolutely right on, IMO. But then, that's why they are supposed to be certified as solvent without the loans FIRST, before disbursing the money.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
These investment banks are "warning" us that if we don't give them a trillion dollars, they'll go out of business, lose all their assets, and somehow WE will suffer as a result.
Why don't WE try that one at our local bank? Walk in to the loan dept. and demand a "bailout," or a "loan" or whatever you want to call it. Tell the loan officer that if he doesn't approve of our "rescue package," we'll lose our assets, and the BANK will suffer, because WE won't have any money to deposit.
See how long you can rant before they call the police.
I guess the lawmakers are believing these lobbyists and banking and brokerage institutions, and economic pundits when they cry for a bailout, enough to even entertain a 750B bailout. :sick:
Now, to me, the Big 2 1/2 25B bailout has more of a semblance of legitimacy, when one can let their mind wander back to 1980 and Lee Iacocca and Chrysler's Fed.loan "bailout." And the fact that it did help Chrysler recover and Lee and Co.did pay the Fed.Guv-Mint back by 1985, in full. And re-tooling their factories for a new world order of vehicles set more for the new "scene" of all-electrics and hybrids and tinkering fascination galore. I can begin to see some order to that. But they should show a good, solid recovery plan with numbers drawn out to the next few years and how they believe their balance sheets will look in that timeframe. Otherwise, it's just a game of "give me now and then give me more later."
Which points my brain squarely to the UAW and coughs up thoughts of "Gimme-gimmee-two for me and 1/2 for you...gimee-gimee-gimeee-gimmeeeeee," ad naseum.
And I'm back to thinking it's not a very good $25B bailout idea. At tall. All it took was thinking of the job banks and entitlement mentality and that blew it to smithereens for me.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I really wonder if GM or Ford will meet the requirements to get any of the money Congress is offering.
Does Paulson really own 680 million worth of stock in Goldman Sachs? If so, he should be disqualified for being in involved in the first place.
At one time WaMu mortage brokers, working on commission only, were greed motivated to grant a loan to the worst of applicants. As those brokers were a major player in the failure of the bank, their commissions should be returned as verified by each of their IRS returns for previous years. However, the customers desire to live in a dwelling he didn't earn or deserve is greed and that should not be rewarded either.
Paulson and his peons stand in front of the media and declare "catastrophic results to our economy if we don't proceed with the bail out."
Tell us: What specifically would the alleged catastrophic results be. Describe them in detail. (You can use a Blue book, if that is what you're used to in college)
Because Bailout rewards Greed and Mismanagement - I'm against it. :mad: :mad:
I think we are in the majority of tax payers that feel the same way. Let the chips fall. The stocks that are stable and the companies making money will survive. The ones that are poorly managed will die and hopefully their greedy executives with them.
Those who support the GOP should be happy some of their politicos raise a voice against this looting of the treasury...and should also be displeased some of their politicos (esp at the top) support it.
A private business fails ? Tough. Try again - but not with public money. If they're such great businessmen they'll easily convince someone to bankroll them. If not, then they need to go and find a proper job like us ordinary folk. Neither the World, nor we, owe these folk a living. What happened to all the billions of $'s, £'s, €'s etc that these outfits made in profits through all the good years ? Did they give it all to charity and we missed it ? Don't think so.
Never mind, our glorious leader - Gordon Brown - is in Washington to help you guys sort it out. Heaven help you. This is the guy who, for 10 years as UK Chancellor of The Exchequer, constantly said he was happy that "The City" did a good job of self-regulation. Now, as Prime Minister and faced with financial catastrophe, he wants firm and "proper" controls placed on "The City". er.......Horse, Door, The, Bolted, Closing, Has, Stable, After, The : re-arrange to form a well known phrase or saying, dumbo. :sick:
More power to BECU and the other Credit Unions but please don't ever let the fat cats from Lehman, Goldman Sachs or the other robber barons get anywhere near them. Failure on this scale should carry a lifetime ban from holding an Executive position in any financial institution.................but it won't. :mad: Maybe there's a clue as to why in the fact that our previous Prime Minister - Tony Blair - resigned and then took up a, doubtless well paid, part-time post with J P Morgan, who are a................oh yeah, some sort of bank. Well, well, well. Still, I'm sure they hired him for his management brilliance. Thinking about it; he was actually pretty clever. He managed to leave office before the excrement hit the rotating air-moving machinery and left Gordon Brown facing said macinery.
Sorry, have to stop now; getting perilously close to a rant. Time for a nice cup of tea I think, Jeeves, aka Mrs Alltorque.
Maybe the Queen will dip into her Billions and bail ya'll out. Have a good weekend.
Careful with that teapot
I have a problem, then.
The congressman for my district is Tom Tancredo; he is not running for re-election in November. Running instead is a former State Treasurer (R) and a no-name (D) - the district is highly R-leaning.
My senator is Wayne Allard. Also not running for re-election. Instead, we have two former congressmen - Mark Udall (D) and Bob Schaeffer (R).
And, of course, the big kahuna is ineligible for a 3rd term, so we have two senators vying for the top spot.
Exactly which incumbents should I not be voting for?
It will require an amendment to the Constitution to limit the terms. Until it is hard for someone to stay clean and above the corruption.
Congress approves $25 Billion for automakers Again:
Under provisions of the new legislation, not only US carmakers are eligible for the guarantees but also suppliers and foreign automakers with plants in the United States that are more than 20 years old -- Nissan and Honda's US operations qualify.
Martin said automakers could use the money for projects such as a new engine plant GM has announced it intends to build in Flint, Michigan.
GM Chairman Rick Wagoner spoke of plans to invest 370 million dollars in a new plant, which will be the exclusive site for production of the gasoline engine or "range extender" for the electric Chevrolet Volt, due out in November 2010.
Once again, we subsidize failure. Thanks, Congress!
What a horrible quote. Still pushes the impression that a requirement for eligibility is that a plant must be at least 20 years old, which is not true. Born out by the following quote from a GM spokesman that the money could be used to build a new plant. [/end rant]
The funding of the loan program has now passed both houses of congress. It is just pending the president's signature.
Also included in the bill is the expiration of most bans on offshore drilling. And a whole bunch of pork.
I kind of wish we would stop calling this a bailout. This is not intended to help the automakers get out of trouble they got themselves into. The automakers are prohibited from using this money to simply shore up their books. (I know it has that net effect, since it frees up budgetary constraints) They still have to show they have a survival plan without the assistance from the government in order to be approved for the loans. These loans are to help offset the costs of meeting new federal mandates. Not unusual at all. Our government, at all levels, has been giving grants and loans for similar purposes to businesses for a long time. Not that I like that, but since the loan program was already in place, and it is a rather common practice, I just figured the funding was a foregone conclusion.
Yes, but now 20 years later, here they are, right back in the same position (in the red for years on end), with their hands out. "Please, Mr. Congress, help us do the things we knew we should have done a decade ago but ignored as we chased short-term profits."
That's the real problem with the automaker bailout, we know we will be right back in the same spot a decade or two from now. The domestics have no long-term planning worth a darn.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree, it is probably money down the drain. I think that the automakers need to make it on their own or die. If we have a sizable unemployed workforce some enterprise will open up to use that labor force. At least the ones willing to work. Those that want a free ride let them starve. The executives can jump off their mortgaged to the max penthouse balcony.
There is no way I can see any auto manufacturer planning on doing much better then breaking-even with the economies going the way they are.
My first inclination is to say no bail out and no loans. But I believe what I think or want doesn't matter and if congress decides to risk the taxpayers money they night as well nationalize. Not that I like the idea but at least you could control the compitition.
Market conditions will always be a greater incentive to any business than any government mandate. Serendipitously. the auto market has changed and now these loans effectively have become a means to help auto makers meet the new market conditions. We can discuss previous business decisions, but it remains that the auto makers produced the cars that the market determined, the cars that people wanted to buy and that they could make the most money from. Now the whole landscape has changed.
If the current financial crisis is really as deep, widespread, and threatening as it has been portrayed, then it will surely affect the auto market, and that was already a market that was in flux. Funding for auto development as well as auto buying will get tighter. The auto makers are bleeding cash. They keep pushing back projections as to when they might be able to stop the bleeding. There seems to be no understanding of whether or not additional infusions of cash will make any difference. We keep hearing about new cars and technology that is 1, 2, 5 years and more down the road complete with some steep price tags. Will the patient even still be breathing by that time? I hope they will, but that is a real big unknown. This seems especially the case with Chrysler. They're private, so we don't know much about inner working. Don't know how deep Cerberus is willing to dig into their pockets to keep Chrysler viable, or if they will just harvest parts and sell them off.
The auto makers, especially the big 2.5, are going to have a difficult time showing they can survive without these loans. They might be able to do it, but I am skeptical at this point. I just have not seen or heard enough that bolsters my confidence yet. It is not too much of a stretch of the imagine that sheer survival becomes their primary justification for needing more government funding. At that point, though it will cause pain, I say let them die.
Maybe the $25 billion will reduce anxiety enough to let the automakers get back to focusing on building cars for the new model year.
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face after a year and a half of this Congress. That bunch would be lucky to come up with a car as useless as a Yugo. Not sure how they would control the competition. That is the problem now. The competition is beating the socks off the Big 3. Let em die and a better mouse trap will replace them.
However that being said if they bail out wall street why not bail out GM? Part of GMs debt is tied up in long term retirement funds, something not faced by Honda and Toyota. Pay off the retirement fund for GM and you free more than enough to make them profitable again. That still seems like nationalizing to me.
I am still leaning on no bail out and let all of the investors gain or lose based on their own particular risks. If that hurts the world economy so be it. It might be time to start all over again.
That is where I am at also. On GM retirements. If they go belly up with no money in the retirement fund we will be stuck paying part of the bill anyway. We could loan them the money and they piss it away and we are still stuck with guaranteeing the retirements. I think most of the money shuffle is caused by fear. My bank manager told me that WaMu would have weathered the storm except the media put them up as being on the brink of disaster. People got scared and pulled out so much money they became what the media predicted. Same happened with IndyMac bank when goofy Chuck Schumer made a statement about their solvency. These people that cause a run on a bank should be prosecuted same as yelling fire in a theater.
"Capitalism without failure is like religion without sin - it just doesn't work" Attributed to Allan Meltzer, economist Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business, I think this is my current favorite quote. I would go further and say that it is like life without pain -it just doesn't make sense.
Pain is unpleasant, and we are naturally averse to it. The unpleasantness of pain is the very essence of its value. Pain is valuable. It gets our attention. It motivates. Pain teaches, and it possibly gets the point across better than any other means. Without it, while we may be fat and happy and blissfully drunk, the dynamism of life simply rots away.
We have become a culture so averse to negative consequences that we seem to have decided that they must be avoided at any cost. We have mitigated, accommodated, enabled, and made super attempts at removing even the possibility of being hurt. That is a dangerous evolution.
If we have even an ounce of human compassion left, it is only natural that we do not want anyone to hurt. We don't want failure. We don't want organizations, systems, businesses, or people to fail. We naturally want to choose a less distasteful option, the path of least pain. But failure must remain an option, and frankly, no matter what we do, it always will be an option.
Sometimes we want to share the pain, share the burden. This is appealing, and does make some sense, but we forget that that does not really lessen the pain, it just makes it easier to get through. Worse, we sometimes want to shift the pain to an unwitting accomplice. Pain works best when it is sharp, focused, and intense. It pinpoints the source of the problem. Amorphous and misplaced pain is harder to diagnose.
So, it from this perspective that I look at the current economic turmoil, including financials, housing, and the auto industry. We keep hearing that we must do this because the other alternative simply must not be an option. We don't want to go there because that would be too painful. We simply can't let our financial sector fail, or housing values drop further, foreclosures continue to rise, or auto makers go under. Too many people will lose their jobs, too much wealth will be lost.
To which I respond, no. I understand that we might not want to go there, but failure is a perfectly viable option albeit an undesirable one. I also do not want anyone to hurt, but accepting that pain, even great pain, will be necessary is not an absence of compassion. Compassion guides us through the wake of pain, to relieve pain, and to move forward. Compassionate consideration should move us to have no desire to cause pain, but I think it is misappropriated when it is used as reason to avoid pain.
For what it is worth, I still don't think of the loan program now available to the auto makers as a bailout. The debate over that issue began nearly two years ago now. It is just unfortunate that the funding of that program has gotten caught up in the current economic environment. It looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it just doesn't talk like a duck. At least not yet.
Failure for the automakers, in the form of bankruptcy, may yet be the option that accomplishes the most. I tend to think the same way about other issues. No matter what happens, I have not gotten to the point that I believe that GM, Ford, and even Chrysler will simply cease to exist. Coming out the other side of failure smaller, leaner, meaner, more agile and able to compete, may just be the most desirable outcome. Someone just has to decide that it is worth the pain.
Seems that along the way we forgot a few other timely quotes.
Damn the torpedoes . . .
I will fear no evil . . .
That which doesn't kill me . . .
This too shall pass.
Sorry for the long post, but thanks for indulging my thoughts.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/weak-economy-takes-heavy-toll/story.aspx?g- uid=%7B3B381CCF%2D53F4%2D452C%2DADC0%2DE481B7EBDE1B%7D
One of the differences between allowing most companies to fail compared with the Detroit 3 is that there most likely wouldn't be a domestic replacement for a failed auto company. This is a difficult to enter business, unlike, say, a restaurant chain, where if one fails there's one or more that will replace it. Any volume lost would be quickly made up by foreign auto makers, thereby strengthening their position in the North American market even more. My question, then, is are you ready to lose these companies for good?
We are part of the global economy & vehicles from other countries have been sold over here for over 50 years.
I'm not willing or ready to subsidize any company, anywhere that can not make a profit on it's own. My investment portfolio includes overseas opportunities and what is my reward for bailing out domestics?
I would miss the Big 3 just as much as I miss Kaiser, Frazier, Studebaker, & Packard.
However if we take the socialist view then don't mess around, nationalize. If you nationalize you can always undercut the foreign compitition because you are investing tax money and you can make rules and regulations that favor your nationalized company. It would put us in the same long term problem we had with Freddy and Fannie but so what? You just go back and ask for another bail out. (Hyperbole offered for free)
That is an interesting question, and a perfectly valid one. Bear in mind my position that I have not gotten to the point where I believe that any of the Big 2.5 will just cease to exist no matter what happens. It is entirely possible that any or all of them could survie the pain of failure and come out stronger than before and still be what we would call a US company. It is also quite possible that any or all of them may be gobbled up in while or in part by some other company, either domestic or not, and still have a presence in the US. Gone for good just doesn't strike me as a strong possibility, yet.
I have been known to say that we used to be a nation that made things, and we are becoming a nation that talks about making things, and we are increasingly content to let other nations make things for us to buy. I make no judgment as to whether this is a good thing or not, but I admit to not being entirely comfortable with the trend. The stakes are pretty high when we're talking about multi-billion dollar industries. You're right, those are not easily replaced, but their sheer size almost assures their continued existence though that future existence may be very different from their current existence.
Unfettered capitalism can be brutal. There is no denying a certain Darwinian element. If we truly value the premises and concepts of capitalism, however, and we want to play the game of business on a global scale, then we should be ready to play that game on that scale while adhering to the premises and concepts that we hold so valuable. The only other option is to abandon those values and adopt something else. I'm not sure I want to go there.
Certainly there is no small element of national pride at play. There is also legitimate concern over our national vitality. My concern is whether that pride is confidence or arrogance, and I wonder how much fortitude we really have left to face issues of vitality. There is a real sense of dread around Detroit these days. It is hard to keep your head up when you are repeatedly getting your butt kicked. I am convinced that the biggest reason the Big 2.5 are struggling is that they are simply getting beat at the game. I think that is primarily due to that fat, happy and blissfully drunk deal I mentioned in my earlier post. Fat, happy, and blissfully drunk can be a lot of fun until you wake up with a headache to the realization that you girlfriend went home with some other guy at the party and your the captain of the football team. (I'm trying to set a record for extended metaphors. How am I doing?
I really do want to see the domestics survive as domestic companies. It is just time for a new game plan. Regrouping and rethinking after defeat is the way to move forward, not simply begging fans to buy more tickets at even higher prices and asking for a new stadium simply because they are the home team under threat of moving away. I am more inclined to throw my support behind a lean, mean, sober team.